Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar A. BUSTILLOS, Defendant-Appellant.
[Unpublished]
Omar Bustillos appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and was sentenced by the district court.1 His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Bustillos has also filed a pro se brief. We affirm.
Bustillos contends the district court erred in denying him leave to withdraw his guilty plea. We conclude, however, Bustillos knowingly and voluntarily entered into his guilty plea, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw it. See United States v. Green, 521 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court's decision to deny motion to withdraw guilty plea is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and whether plea was knowing and voluntary is reviewed de novo; defendant must establish “fair and just” reason to withdraw plea after its acceptance); see also Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting a defendant's statements during plea hearing carry strong presumption of verity).
Bustillos also argues he received a substantively unreasonable sentence, but that challenge is foreclosed by the appeal waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (enforcing appeal waiver if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and it would not result in miscarriage of justice). Further, to the extent Bustillos raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we defer those claims for collateral proceedings. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting ineffective-assistance claims are ordinarily deferred to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings).
Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and found no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-2520
Decided: June 21, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)